The Bf109 was already an old design by the time the P-47 first flew, The P-47 designers had the opportunity to adjust their design in the face of war experience. The original Bf109 was a (relatively) light fighter, whereas the P-47 was deliberately built as a heavy fighter (a continuing debate in US aircraft purchasing see F-15/F-16 ... earlier the F-5 and F-104 discussions).

The Bf109 was weighted down as it was expected to tackle heavy bombers and became overweight and much less easy to manage. The role of the fighter as a bomber destroyer (its true role) may have been more difficult if bombers had been equipped with 20mm cannon as defensive armament, but I think only the Soviets had a light, reliable, high rate of fire 20mm cannon.

In 1937-41 the Bf109 would have eaten the P-47, by late 1944 the P-47 could eat the Bf109 (especially given the 'defense of the Reich' tasking of the Bf109).

The P-47 was never called on to defeat any serious operation of heavy bombers.

It's an edited record of a single combat. The Jug reversed direction, just as you described in your thought experiment. The light fighter, in this case a FW-190, stayed with him through every turn he made, just as Edgar predicted. Leading to the sad, inevitable result- the explosion and flames seen at the end of the clip. I hope the pilot survived, but regardless, it's a real world example of what happened under the starting conditions you proscribe, even down to the tactic attempted by the unfortunate victim.

Can you please state what part of this film shows a reversal of bank angle? I've watched several times now and can not remember that happening. As far as I can tell, it is a single circle fight.

The 4000lb HC "Cookie" was 110" long. The 500lb MC bomb was 60"+ long, and the Mosquito held four of those, two end to end on each side of the bay.

The problem may have been the tail, becuase teh square American tail may have been bulkier than the round tails used on British bombs.

The Mosquito had difficulty with weight balance with the 4000lb HC cookie when the original B.IV conversions were done. The IX and XVI had the two stage Merlins, so were better balanced, but sticking something 2.5 times teh weight in teh same space would be bound to cause difficulties.

The Mossy used "Short Fin" versions of those bombs, not the standard size you mentioned. Down load the picture of the plane in the USAF Museum and measure the length of the bomb bay and divide that into the LOA. See what I mean.

The Mossy used "Short Fin" versions of those bombs, not the standard size you mentioned. Down load the picture of the plane in the USAF Museum and measure the length of the bomb bay and divide that into the LOA. See what I mean.

The Mosquito only used short fin versions of the 500lb medium capacity/GP bomb.

The 250lb GP bombs the Mosquito was originally intended to carry were 56" long.

The 500lb GP bomb had a length that varied between 68.7" and 70.6". The shortened version became the standard version, IIRC.

btw, I scaled a Mossie bomb bay from a model and calculated it to be approximately 130 inches long.

How do you define efficiency?Speed+load+range/MTO+HP? The B-17 was faster on less power, had more range at any given MTO and flew higher at any given weight. All symptoms of a more aerodynamic plane.Even unladen the Lancaster's ceiling wasn't that high, and certainly not high enough to avoid flak.At ~24,000' with 14,000 pounds up, how much would it have gone up with 8,000 pounds less?Certainly the Lancaster would have been less able to carry such heavy bomb loads had it needed the guns that the B-17 did.The Spitfire never used the Merlin XX series that the majority of Lancasters did. Also, see (1).Yes it did. See page 156 of Stewart Wilson's AC of WW-II.The Hawker Hurrican did, and it had a ceiling of 36,000ft. But it was also an excellent climber - something I doubt the Lanc could be accused of. So the engine was able to pull to 36,000' what was wrong with the airfraim that stopped the Lanc from doing the same?The empty weight of the B-17 isn't much different to a Lancaster. The Lancaster stil has 3 gun turets (front, dorsal and rear - some early models also had a periscope aimed belly turret). The Lancaster also, probably, carried more electronics equipment and navigation aids.

The problem with advocating the B-17 as being more efficient is that it really wasn't. They required more crew per aircraft and more aircraft to put the amount of bombs onto a target. The guns provided some deterrent to the Germans, but the lass rates were unsustainable without escort regardless.German records show that more of their AC were downed by B-17s than the next two types combined.The upside to using Lancasters is that they can carry bigger bombs.Not in dispute. So while the USAAF threw lots of 250lb, 350lb, 500lb and 1000lb bombs at target the RAF could lob down some 4000lb, 8000lb and 12,000lb bombs, potentially reducing the number of times the bombers would need to return to put a facility out of action, or keep it out of action.

What is in dispute is that those bombs were nearly as effective. 50% of them missed the entire city they were aimed at. The rest failed to hit any factories, except by secondary fires. Less than 2% of American bombs hit inside the factory fence, but 98% of the rest certainly landed inside the city. Which score was truely more effective?

Then please accept some friendly advice from somebody who is a moderator in several forums â€“ when posting always think how your posts could be interpreted. Remember that tone (while there in your head when you read it to yourself) is missing on screen. Smilies can help.

It is true that planes have different strengths, so (for example) using a MiG-3 as a low-altitude fighter will handicap it. However, that is more the fault of those giving the orders than a fault of the plane itself â€“ no plane is the best at everything, not even (sorry Lightning;)) the P-38 or (sorry England:p) the Mosquito Absolutely true!
I have some issues with your example above though. The idea that the B-17 only carried fewer bombs due to extra weight or height is not correct. The B-17 could not fly as far or as fast as a Lanc if both carried the same bombload.Where did you get that idea? The B-17 could not fly as far or as fast as the Lanc even when carrying a smaller bombload - which it always did. Plus the B-17 cannot significantly increase its bombload without carrying bombs externally - further reducing range and speed. The only advantage the B-17 had is height, which does help keep it safer but also lowers bombing accuracy.You want to compair accuracy? 50% miss the city at night and the other 50% hit more homes than factories. Really? As to survivability, take a look at how many additional defensive guns the B-17 picked up in its lifetime, and how ineffective these were at actually defending it. The biggest factor in B-17 loss rates was the demolition of the Luftwaffeâ€™s day fighter force, not any feature of the B-17. The B-17 contributed to that destruction. The Germans claim more losses to B-17s than any other type.
Lancs, meanwhile, operated at night, not in formation and without escort, against a branch of the Luftwaffe that remained largely uninterrupted by the course of the daylight bombing campaigns. Lets see, a few dozen night fighters at any one time, vs several thousand day fighters at any one time? I would argue that the differances in asset allocation by bthe Germans tells us which they considered to be the larger problem?

Not really. It was a heavy tank (technically a â€˜breakthroughâ€™ tank) designed to spearhead assaults, and in that role it was fantastic.No it was not. Sending twenty out and having two arrive at the destination a few dozen miles away was fantastic how? Count the total number of engagements fought by tigers. They can be cronicaled in a single book. Of the ~1500 made, less than 1/4th ever saw combat. 1/4![/COLOR
It is worth noting that only 1,347 were produced (compare that to 3,971 Pz III, 8,800 Pz IV and 6,706 Panthers â€“ the German medium tanks).MY memory was faulty, they only made <1,400 and less than 1/4 of them saw combat because they broke down so often!

Who?
Germany couldnâ€™t conquer Britain, Sure, if Germany ends up fighting a 1-front war somehow then WW2 will be longer, but never, ever, can Germany win.

[COLOR="red"]Yes they could have, every major participant back then thought so. After Dunkirk, the RA was out of all most everything. Two more days bombing the RAF air fields and the BoB is lost. The Germans invade and the Brits have nothing to fight with. Blitzkrieg rolls over England and the Germans consolidate till next spring. You take it from there.

What is in dispute is that those bombs were nearly as effective. 50% of them missed the entire city they were aimed at. The rest failed to hit any factories, except by secondary fires. Less than 2% of American bombs hit inside the factory fence, but 98% of the rest certainly landed inside the city. Which score was truely more effective?

When the RAF bombers were missing entire cities the B-17s weren't even operating in the ETO.

By the time the USAAF started to bomb Germany (August 1943) the RAF had developed new navigational and bombing aids, as well as creating the pathfinder force (initially with Lancasters) and could bomb at night as accurately as the 8th AF bombed by day.

Due to Bomber Harris' desire to bomb German cities they didn't attack factories very often. When they did they were far more effective than the B-17s.

Donald Miller in his book that the RAF hit Leuna only a couple of times, but did more damage than the USAAF in many more attacks.

Speed+load+range/MTO+HP? The B-17 was faster on less power, had more range at any given MTO and flew higher at any given weight. All symptoms of a more aerodynamic plane.

Really brilliant! It shows that the 14SM engine had more than enough power to get up to at least 30,000' but at a weight of 62-63,000 pounds. Knowing the ceiling is related to wing loading and availible power, all we have to do is see how much weight has to be removed to get to the same altitude as the B-17! Note that the 14SM engine has 1,710 HP vs the R-1820's ~1,200. So the air fraim requires ~2,000 more HP to do about the same job? Right. That is what I mean by efficiancy.

Lets see, a few dozen night fighters at any one time, vs several thousand day fighters at any one time? I would argue that the differances in asset allocation by bthe Germans tells us which they considered to be the larger problem?

Nice work NCS - you've completely dismissed the German nightfighter arm as being a mere token, while exaggerating the odds that the 8th AF faced.

btw, the Luftwaffe day fighter arm was mostly done by D-Day, but not so the night fighter arm - they remained very strong until early 1945.

The Mosquito only used short fin versions of the 500lb medium capacity/GP bomb.

The 250lb GP bombs the Mosquito was originally intended to carry were 56" long.

The 500lb GP bomb had a length that varied between 68.7" and 70.6". The shortened version became the standard version, IIRC.

btw, I scaled a Mossie bomb bay from a model and calculated it to be approximately 130 inches long.

There was a third version too as it was less than 54" long, IIRC! That's right, four and a half feet long. Note that this number is from memory as stated. The internal dimensions of the bomb bay were less than the outside size of the doors.But if it is that long inside and the range of CoG can accommodate the LB bomb, I would be amazed. But I still believe that given enough run way, it flies!

Really brilliant! It shows that the 14SM engine had more than enough power to get up to at least 30,000' but at a weight of 62-63,000 pounds. Knowing the ceiling is related to wing loading and availible power, all we have to do is see how much weight has to be removed to get to the same altitude as the B-17! Note that the 14SM engine has 1,710 HP vs the R-1820's ~1,200. So the air fraim requires ~2,000 more HP to do about the same job? Right. That is what I mean by efficiancy.

The 14SM was a Merlin 85 in the Lancaster VI. There were a whole 9 of them made (converted from earlier versions).

I would have to check when I got home, but at 28,000ft (the Lancaster VI's ceiling) the 14RMSM woul dhave much less than 1710hp, probably about the same as the R-1820s had at that altitude.

When the RAF bombers were missing entire cities the B-17s weren't even operating in the ETO.They were still missing entire cities with half the bombs at the end of the war. Things like aim and target creep, counter fires set by the Nazis to mimic those dropped by the pathfinders and ECM all caused large errors.

By the time the USAAF started to bomb Germany (August 1943) the RAF had developed new navigational and bombing aids, as well as creating the pathfinder force (initially with Lancasters) and could bomb at night as accurately as the 8th AF bombed by day.See above.

Due to Bomber Harris' desire to bomb German cities they didn't attack factories very often. When they did they were far more effective than the B-17s.

Donald Miller in his book that the RAF hit Leuna only a couple of times, but did more damage than the USAAF in many more attacks.

The B-17 wasn't that much faster. The range wasn't longer, unless they added bomb bay fuel tanks. Just 2,350 to 2,200 miles.

Is he an authority on WW2 aircraft. The Spitfire?Yes!

Ok genius, what mark of Spitfire was fitted with the Merlin XX, and how many were made? Mk-V The Mk-XX family included all of the two stage two speed engines.Probably weight. Even empty the Lanc was more than 4 times the weight of a fully loaded Hurricane. Yes, but if the similar sized B-17 could hit over 35,000' with the same weight all up and ~2,000 less HP, what does that say about the Lancaster's L/D numbers?You can believe that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.